[CURIOUSITY] When will we stop caring about arch/ppc?

[CURIOUSITY] When will we stop caring about arch/ppc?

[Mark A. Greer]

Any opinions on when we stop worrying about arch/ppc and start getting
rid of it for real?

Mark

Re: [CURIOUSITY] When will we stop caring about arch/ppc?

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 11:23 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote:
> Any opinions on when we stop worrying about arch/ppc and start getting
> rid of it for real?

There are lots of boards in the 4xx family that don't exist yet in
powerpc.  I don't think we want it to die until they get moved over, or
at least marked as in a "danger zone" for a while.

Maybe what we could do is designate a kernel release where we'll stop
taking new arch/ppc submissions?

josh

Re: [CURIOUSITY] When will we stop caring about arch/ppc?

[Kumar Gala]

On Jun 25, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:

> On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 11:23 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote:
>> Any opinions on when we stop worrying about arch/ppc and start  
>> getting
>> rid of it for real?
>
> There are lots of boards in the 4xx family that don't exist yet in
> powerpc.  I don't think we want it to die until they get moved  
> over, or
> at least marked as in a "danger zone" for a while.

Agreed, we need to go through and figure out what all really needs to  
get moved over for other boards.  I know 4xx has only one board  
supported in arch/powerpc and I dont believe the support is complete.

> Maybe what we could do is designate a kernel release where we'll stop
> taking new arch/ppc submissions?

I think we stopped taking new submissions to arch/ppc a while ago...  
someone sneak something in on us?  We tend to only do bug fixes or  
deal with issues related to moving things between arch/ppc & arch/ 
powerpc.

- k

Re: [CURIOUSITY] When will we stop caring about arch/ppc?

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 14:42 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Jun 25, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 11:23 -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote:
> >> Any opinions on when we stop worrying about arch/ppc and start  
> >> getting
> >> rid of it for real?
> >
> > There are lots of boards in the 4xx family that don't exist yet in
> > powerpc.  I don't think we want it to die until they get moved  
> > over, or
> > at least marked as in a "danger zone" for a while.
> 
> Agreed, we need to go through and figure out what all really needs to  
> get moved over for other boards.  I know 4xx has only one board  
> supported in arch/powerpc and I dont believe the support is complete.

Right.  Ebony boots at least.  Needs PCI to be completed.  There are
lots of other 44x boards that should probably be brought over and are in
various stages of completion.  Bamboo, Taishan, Sequoia, Katmai, etc.

For 40x, I hope to get working on a Walnut port soon.  Not sure much
else is really needed there.

There's also the Xilinx boards.

> > Maybe what we could do is designate a kernel release where we'll stop
> > taking new arch/ppc submissions?
> 
> I think we stopped taking new submissions to arch/ppc a while ago...  
> someone sneak something in on us?  We tend to only do bug fixes or  
> deal with issues related to moving things between arch/ppc & arch/ 
> powerpc.

Well, there's definitely been an aversion to it.  But I meant adding
something in the Documentation/powerpc/ directory and maybe
feature-removal-schedule.txt.  Basically a written down thing in the
kernel source to refer people to.

josh

Re: [CURIOUSITY] When will we stop caring about arch/ppc?

[Segher Boessenkool]

> But I meant adding
> something in the Documentation/powerpc/ directory and maybe
> feature-removal-schedule.txt.  Basically a written down thing in the
> kernel source to refer people to.

How about this time next year -- special event at
the OLS PowerPC BOF :-)


Segher

Re: [CURIOUSITY] When will we stop caring about arch/ppc?

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 09:48 +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > But I meant adding
> > something in the Documentation/powerpc/ directory and maybe
> > feature-removal-schedule.txt.  Basically a written down thing in the
> > kernel source to refer people to.
> 
> How about this time next year -- special event at
> the OLS PowerPC BOF :-)

Heh, sounds good to me.

Of course, getting stuff done in a year.... ;)

josh

Re: [CURIOUSITY] When will we stop caring about arch/ppc?

[Segher Boessenkool]

>>> But I meant adding
>>> something in the Documentation/powerpc/ directory and maybe
>>> feature-removal-schedule.txt.  Basically a written down thing in the
>>> kernel source to refer people to.
>>
>> How about this time next year -- special event at
>> the OLS PowerPC BOF :-)
>
> Heh, sounds good to me.
>
> Of course, getting stuff done in a year.... ;)

Well the arch/ppc tree is basically frozen already, all Freescale
stuff got moved over already as far as I can see, and 4xx has
started moving.  I think a year is enough, since the tree is
frozen anyway, people can resurrect stuff from older releases
if need be, no problem with deleting it.  In fact, why not do
so this year :-)  [Yeah that was a joke].


Segher

Re: [CURIOUSITY] When will we stop caring about arch/ppc?

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 15:46 +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> But I meant adding
> >>> something in the Documentation/powerpc/ directory and maybe
> >>> feature-removal-schedule.txt.  Basically a written down thing in the
> >>> kernel source to refer people to.
> >>
> >> How about this time next year -- special event at
> >> the OLS PowerPC BOF :-)
> >
> > Heh, sounds good to me.
> >
> > Of course, getting stuff done in a year.... ;)
> 
> Well the arch/ppc tree is basically frozen already, all Freescale

Actually, that's the part I wanted to document.  Not the actual removal
(or maybe in addition to anyway).  So far, we've just been saying
"basically frozen", "I think we stopped taking new submissions", etc.
If that's the case, just officially declare it frozen somehow in the
kernel source.

Of course, that would mean Paul needs to officially say that with the
big maintainer stamp :).

josh

Re: [CURIOUSITY] When will we stop caring about arch/ppc?

[Arnd Bergmann]

On Tuesday 26 June 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> Well the arch/ppc tree is basically frozen already, all Freescale
> stuff got moved over already as far as I can see, and 4xx has
> started moving.

8xx has been moved over, but last time I tried, it was not possible
to actually compile that code. Note sure if the arch/ppc version of
it is in a much better shape though.

82xx seems to be in a similar state to 4xx, with a single platform
moved over, but most of the code still being arch/ppc only.

	Arnd <><

Re: [CURIOUSITY] When will we stop caring about arch/ppc?

[Kumar Gala]

On Jun 26, 2007, at 12:03 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Tuesday 26 June 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
>> Well the arch/ppc tree is basically frozen already, all Freescale
>> stuff got moved over already as far as I can see, and 4xx has
>> started moving.
>
> 8xx has been moved over, but last time I tried, it was not possible
> to actually compile that code. Note sure if the arch/ppc version of
> it is in a much better shape though.
>
> 82xx seems to be in a similar state to 4xx, with a single platform
> moved over, but most of the code still being arch/ppc only.

Scott Wood is look at both of these post OLS.

- k

Re: [CURIOUSITY] When will we stop caring about arch/ppc?

[Vitaly Bordug]

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 19:03:41 +0200
Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> On Tuesday 26 June 2007, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > Well the arch/ppc tree is basically frozen already, all Freescale
> > stuff got moved over already as far as I can see, and 4xx has
> > started moving.
> 
> 8xx has been moved over, but last time I tried, it was not possible
> to actually compile that code. Note sure if the arch/ppc version of
> it is in a much better shape though.
> 
8xx should be ok now, yet, we have to be aware that only 2 platforms are in arch/powerpc
and there are plenty in arch/ppc still.

> 82xx seems to be in a similar state to 4xx, with a single platform
> moved over, but most of the code still being arch/ppc only.
> 
The situation is better here - most stuff is very similar to what is done (except sandpoint but that's another story)
and the number of platforms is reasonable.

for the 8xx feild, there is quite a lot of boards...
with all the "specifics", it is nearly impossible to provide robust port without actual HW
(or, heh, the result won't work at all).

> 	Arnd <><
> _______________________________________________
> Linuxppc-dev mailing list
> Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
> https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev


-- 
Sincerely, Vitaly

Re: [CURIOUSITY] When will we stop caring about arch/ppc?

[Mark A. Greer]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 03:46:58PM +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> >>> But I meant adding
> >>> something in the Documentation/powerpc/ directory and maybe
> >>> feature-removal-schedule.txt.  Basically a written down thing in the
> >>> kernel source to refer people to.
> >>
> >> How about this time next year -- special event at
> >> the OLS PowerPC BOF :-)
> >
> > Heh, sounds good to me.
> >
> > Of course, getting stuff done in a year.... ;)
> 
> Well the arch/ppc tree is basically frozen already, all Freescale
> stuff got moved over already as far as I can see, and 4xx has
> started moving.  I think a year is enough, since the tree is
> frozen anyway, people can resurrect stuff from older releases
> if need be, no problem with deleting it.  In fact, why not do
> so this year :-)  [Yeah that was a joke].

Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with getting rid of arch/ppc right
now.  It won't really be lost, just git checkout your favorite tag that
still has it.  It'll get rid of code people shouldn't be worrying about
anymore anyway.

I realize, I'm probably the only one with this opinion so you don't have
to tell me all the reasons I'm wrong. :)

Mark

Re: [CURIOUSITY] When will we stop caring about arch/ppc?

[Scott Wood]

On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 10:18:11AM -0700, Mark A. Greer wrote:
> Actually, I wouldn't have a problem with getting rid of arch/ppc right
> now.  It won't really be lost, just git checkout your favorite tag that
> still has it.  It'll get rid of code people shouldn't be worrying about
> anymore anyway.
> 
> I realize, I'm probably the only one with this opinion so you don't have
> to tell me all the reasons I'm wrong. :)

Not at all -- it'd save me a lot of "#ifdef CONFIG_PPC_MERGE"s in my CPM
driver patches. :-)

-Scott